Sunday, March 07, 2004

Mr. Giuliani's statement is short and sweet and to the point. Do we want a leader who will work to make our country safer or not? The television news barrages about how the 2004 election will be a "referendum" on George W. Bush are really a smokescreen. Lost jobs? Funny, when I was trying to get hired on at various companies in 2000 prior to graduation the only answers I got were "We're trying to cut jobs to save money. Sorry." While I was in college from 1997 to 2000 after I'd gotten out of the Air Force, I saw lots of people losing jobs, lots of reductions in hiring. This tells me that the job market isn't reliant on who sits in the Oval Office. When companies want to lay off workers, they don't wait until a President they dislike is in office, they do it as soon as it's financially expedient. They do their hiring at similar financially expedient times. The only financial jobs that the President really has is signing bills that Congress passes to him and picking the right people for Treasury and Federal Reserve positions. Tax cuts? That's been the best thing so far for families. The only real problem I've had so far is the president's desire to spend more than he takes in, and even Reagan showed that it's possible to keep the nation afloat when spending deficits occur in the government.

So, since the economy is doing better than the folks on tv would have you believe, they throw up the next issue of gay marriage. I'd like to see gay marriage happen, but it's more of a social issue than something in which government should interfere. The Federal Marriage Amendment keeps the door open for civil unions on a state-by-state basis. I still think they should be called marriages, but civil unions are a good compromise when the anti-gay marriage crowd isn't willing to budge. As I've said, it's not a federal issue.

With social issues and domestic issues doing better than folks want you to believe, what's left? Foreign and military policies, the bread and butter of the Presidency. This is where President Bush needs to show his hand. In the past three years, our military has gone after terrorists where they live and shown groups like Al-Qaeda that if they want to play soldier they're going to have to fight against real soldiers. So far, they haven't done too well against real soldiers in Afghanistan. They're keeping the pressure on us in Iraq, but Ba'athists and Islamofascists alike have been switching gears and attacking Iraqis. Why? They want to ensure that a Western government doesn't appear in Iraq. They don't want the promise of liberty to reach banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. President Bush is doing just that. He is spreading the word of Western Civilization to recalcitrant foes. When we are attacked, we will hunt you down and expose you to the rest of the world. If you still wish to fight, you will lose. This brusque manner is hated by the bureaucrats in Paris, but so what? We're willing to defend what we know to be right, and we'll do it with or without international sanction. And even more irritating to Parisian government apparatchiks and leftist news mouthpieces, we have the sanction and cooperation of other nations.

This is the gist of Mr. Giuliani's statement. Our main concern for this election should be national security. Of the two candidates, George W. Bush has the best record, and should be re-elected. This is a statement I can support.